More than Hope in Zimbabwe

Weeks after the violence surrounding the presidential election in Zimbabwe has subsided, Morgan Tsvangirai and Robert Mugabe have finally reached a power-sharing agreement. In this arrangement, Tsvangirai becomes prime minister and chairman of the council of ministers, while Mugabe remains president, chairman of the cabinet, and leader of the armed forces. Despite this political solution, economic troubles remain. In order to solve them, the United States, though perhaps wary of the uncertainty of this political union, must act decisively by supporting foreign aid negotiations.

Zimbabwe faces a critical moment in a history riddled with political problems. Since Zimbabwean independence in 1980, President Mugabe has led a nation gripped by economic recession and hyperinflation; according to the Kenya Standard, inflation rates now reach up to 20 million percent. Mugabe, as the chief decision-maker in Zimbabwe, has attempted reforms whose failed results he has blamed on indeterminable interference by Western states, such as Zimbabwe’s one-time colonizer, Great Britain. Amidst all this economic trouble, Zimbabwe continues to enforce strict restrictions on distribution of aid across the country. Any improvements for life in Zimbabwe will have to start by lifting these restrictions.

With an agreement reached, it is now the United States’ turn to step up. A neutral state actor is needed to ensure that this new government can address economic problems in Zimbabwe with foreign aid. Great Britain has reacted skeptically to the political agreement, doubting whether it will cause actual changes. It has offered to help with financial resources once Zimbabwe demonstrates a certain degree of self-help, but Britain’s safe approach may miss an opportunity for international aid that America must not let slip. South Africa remains bound by its proximity and local trade deals with Zimbabwe, in addition to its role as a neutral mediator in African politics.

The United States, however, shares none of these political constraints. Even though it is closely connected with Great Britain, a country whose connections to Zimbabwe remain strong, the United States never occupied Zimbabwe. Furthermore, since the United States relies less on trade with Africa than several other capable powers, such as China, the United States can approach negotiations to allow foreign aid as a neutral party interested on behalf of humanity.

Practically, the United States would not even have to provide much of the funding, if restrictions loosened. A group of donors in Africa known as the “Fishmongers Group” has already vowed to inject approximately $1 billion into Zimbabwe once Zimbabwe lifts donation restrictions. The money is there, waiting; the United States thus has to only work to facilitate Zimbabwe’s opening-up.

Furthermore, it seems that there is more room for compromise in Zimbabwe generally, at least for the time being. Mugabe may be willing to discuss economic reform more than in earlier situations, as he acknowledges the influence of Tsvangirai and looks forward. By agreeing to the current political arrangement, Mugabe has demonstrated at least some capacity for negotiation and compromise. And even with Tsvangirai in charge of the day-to-day government, Mugabe would be able to claim a portion of the credit for any economic successes, with deniability and a ready scapegoat if the situation does not improve.

In a self-interested sense, a United States-brokered compromise on economic reform in Zimbabwe would help restore a tarnished international reputation. One dominant theme in American politics recently has been the failure to negotiate and work with other countries diplomatically. After the infamous “Coalition of the Willing” touted by the Bush administration before the invasion of Iraq, many nations have grown skeptical of the ability for the United States to organize and spearhead a positive and mutually acceptable agreement among nations. Joining in efforts to revive Zimbabwe’s economy would help ease this skepticism and restore some of the United States’ pre-Iraq reputation.

With the United States’ own economy facing growing problems, such actions would also demonstrate a true commitment to promoting African democracy and economic growth. The collapse of major investment banks and mortgage giants in the United States should not hinder the country from sending diplomatic aid abroad. Instead, the United States can show that such economic uncertainty has not weakened its commitment and capacity for positive influence in the global community. This is perhaps more important in the tenuous state of international politics right now, since the true nature of any person or nation is evident in generosity during hardship, not prosperity. Investing in a stable Zimbabwe is an investment that is sure to bring returns; the long-term positive impact of an economically healthy, democratic Zimbabwe will resonate throughout the world long after the United States’ own recent economic troubles have faded from public concern.

It is unclear to what extent Tsvangirai will be able to exercise power over economic restrictions and to what extent Zimbabwe will take positive steps toward following the current power-sharing agreement. Tsvangirai standing alongside Mugabe, however, represents in itself a tentative removal of the handcuffs that have checked foreign assistance. In its last several months in office, the Bush administration must seize this opportunity to take a strong, positive stand in foreign policy and finally help Zimbabwe assume its position as an African democracy with a hopeful future.

Alexander R. Konrad ’11, a Crimson editorial editor, is a history concentrator in Quincy House.